High Court · 2025

W.P No.13876 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 31.10.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIW.P No.13876 of 2025D.Sathiya.....PetitionerVs1.The Indian Bank Nemili Branch Rep. by its Branch Manager No.11A, Arakkonam Road Nemili, Ranipet District Tamil Nadu-631 051.2.M.Perumal3.P.Krishnaveni(R2 & R3 were suo motu impleaded videorder dated 17.04.2025).....RespondentsPRAYER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to hand over the jewellery to the petitioner, which was pledged by the petitioner's late husband Mr.P.Dilli with the respondent bank in Loan A/c Nos.6927885657, 6976881916 & 6997875577. For Petitioner : Mr.Ali Hassan KhanFor R1 : Mr.Rajendran Raghavan For R2 & R3 : S.Srinivasan O R D E RPage 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.13876 of 2025This writ petition has been filed, directing the respondent to hand over the jewellery to the petitioner, which was pledged by the petitioner's late husband Mr.P.Dilli with the respondent bank in Loan A/c Nos.6927885657, 6976881916 & 6997875577. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was married to one P.Dilli, the son of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, on 10.11.2019 at KKR Manickammal Marriage Hall, Panapakkam, Nemili and thereafter, they live together. The petitioner's husband pledged her jewels at the 1st respondent bank for his business purposes securing loans of Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.09.2020, Rs.1,30,000/- on 30.01.2021, Rs.4,00,000/- on 11.03.2021 amounting to a total mortgage of Rs.6,30,000/-. Unfortunately, the petitioner had lost her husband during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic by being affected by Covid-19 virus. Thereafter, the petitioner had paid the balance loan amount of Rs.1,12,002/- on 21.08.2023, Rs.1,27,047/- on 21.08.2023, Rs.1,60,951/- on 21.08.2023 and Rs.4,06,633/- on 21.06.2024 to the 1st respondent bank after obtaining concurrence from her in-laws, who are the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein. The petitioner paid the entire loan amount to the bank and now, the Bank Manager needs the No Objection Certificate of legal heirs to give back the jewels. The petitioner has been making representation to the 1st respondent Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.13876 of 2025Bank stating that she is willing to execute an Indemnity Bond. But the 1st respondent Bank has not taken any action. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is an admitted fact that the 2nd and 3rd respondents are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the petitioner, and the parents of her deceased husband. They were unaware of the jewel loan obtained by the petitioner's husband during his lifetime. The petitioner was fully aware of these facts, as she had parted with her entire set of jewels for the purpose of her husband's business. The petitioner repaid the entire jewel loan amount. Despite this, the 1st respondent Bank refused to return the jewels, which is unjustifiable. Consequently, the petitioner issued a notice to the 2nd and 3rd respondents seeking a No Objection Certificate. In response, they sent a reply notice claiming that the entire jewels belonged to them. However, in their counter affidavit, they stated that only 6 sovereigns of jewels belonged to them, and the remaining jewels belonged to the petitioner. In view of the contradictory stand taken by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, it is evident that they are not the owners of the jewels in question. The entire set of jewels belongs to the petitioner. Hence, this Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the 1st respondent Bank to return the jewels to the petitioner upon her filing an Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.13876 of 2025undertaking affidavit along with an Indemnity Bond. If the 2nd and 3rd respondents claim any right over the jewels, liberty may be granted to them to file a suit before the appropriate civil court against the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to comply with any direction issued by the civil court, including payment of any amount or return of the jewels to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate directions.4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that if the 2nd and 3rd respondents issue a No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner for the return of the jewels, or if the petitioner executes an Indemnity Bond before the 1st respondent, the Bank will return the jewels accordingly.5. The learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents submitted that they are the parents of the deceased, and for business purposes, they had given their jewels to their son, who subsequently pledged them and obtained a loan. However, the learned counsel fairly conceded that while the respondents initially claimed ownership of the entire set of jewels, in the counter affidavit they restricted their claim to only 6 sovereigns. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate directions.Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.13876 of 20256.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.7.The facts of the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner married the son of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the year 2019. Subsequently, the petitioner's husband passed away. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into a second marriage. However, prior to his demise, the petitioner's deceased husband had pledged her jewels with the 1st respondent Bank for the development of his business and obtained a loan of Rs.6,30,000/-. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner herself approached the 1st respondent Bank to redeem the pledged jewels and paid the entire loan amount. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were unaware of the pledging of the jewels by their son. However, they subsequently took a contradictory stand by sending a reply claiming that all the jewels belonged to them, while in their counter affidavit, they admitted that only 6 sovereigns of jewels were theirs. In view of the inconsistent stand taken by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the appropriate remedy available to them lies before the competent civil court and not before this Court. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:i) The 1st respondent Bank is directed to return the entire set of jewels to Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.13876 of 2025the petitioner upon obtaining an Indemnity Bond and an undertaking affidavit from her.ii) Liberty is granted to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to approach the competent civil court for appropriate relief.8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 31.10.2025Index: Yes/No Neutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderumaTo1.The District Collector Office of the Collectorate Singaravelar Maaligai Kamarajaj Salai, Chennai-600 0012.The Tahsildar Mylapore Taluk, Chennai-600 028 M.DHANDAPANI, J. umaPage 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P No.13876 of 2025 W.P No.13876 of 2025 31.10.2025 Page 7 of 7